add_source

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does reveal the upsert behavior ('Add or replace... matched by tag') and enumerates the accepted source fields and type values. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects on existing data beyond replacement, permissions, or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then compactly enumerates the source fields. It is somewhat dense as a run-on list, but it contains no filler or redundant content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations, a mostly open source object, and siblings that overlap with reference management. The description fails to explain `path` and `out`, and does not help an agent choose between adding a source and importing references. The output schema exists, so return values are not the main gap, but invocation context is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the source object allows additional properties, so the description adds real value by listing all source fields and their formats. However, the required `path` parameter and optional `out` parameter are left completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a tool with only three parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Add or replace') and resource ('bibliography source'), and introduces the tag-matching semantics. It is distinct enough from remove_source and list_sources, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: you add or replace a source by tag. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over import_references, add_citation, or add_bibliography, nor any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.